When disaster strikes, often times players will resort to "survival mode" instead of following any sort of strict set of laws, which can resort in chaos. Without addressing disaster first, player decisions will be pointless since survival is all players will be concerned about. Although player decisions should not be completely ignored, it should be addressed after disaster is.

You have to realize the rationale between the graph we were given in lecture that dealt with stress and boredom. The "survival mode" you're talking about is highly subjective to the player. Depending on if the player has a high stress tolerance or not, it will be different for every individual. Disaster should be weighed in terms of the pace of the game to which it still pertains to the overall context and goal of the game, not the "survival mode" of the player him/herself.

I think disasters are the most important for me because with disasters, there is often a shock implemented. In the midst of the shock, capitalism and other forms of governmental action come into play as a part of the relief aid. There is a history of swift changes such as free market or mass privatizations that can be considered the therapy of shock therapy according to author Naomi Klein in her work "The Shock Doctrine". For me, the main priority should be natural disasters.

Wait, aren't there no states that need to be accountable? If we work on the collective and gradual issues first, while the process will be slower, we can as a collective remedy issues that will gain more prevalence in the future. Second to that should be personal accountability, just as travelingwanderer stated above, and the affairs of states should only be held accountable if they are acting against the environmental needs of the entire population.